4 ms·

Fair question and I dislike this sort of thing as much as anyone. And of course such an opening comment means there is a "but..." coming. What you're asking f

Fair question and I dislike this sort of thing as much as anyone. And of course such an opening comment means there is a "but..." coming. What you're asking for is to criminalize certain petitions of government. So how do you choose whom to discriminate against such that they cannot petition their government in regards to law making without, at the same time, simply institutionalizing the viewpoints of the other side? Maybe we shutdown corporate lobbying, but then do you need to shut down other associations of individuals (consumer groups, unions, etc) from lobbying government in order to keep equity, or tacitly assume those other organizations must be right anyway? There are many ways to play that game and the only options are those that simply favor one interest group over another... sure, the winning side probably won't complain about undue influence or insensitivity to the concerns of the losing side... but when has it ever been that way? If you want a real solution to problem you're talking about without explicitly shutting down the give and take of ideas (good and bad) that are required to make the democratic aspects of our system function, your only solution is to limit what power the government has to influence preferential outcomes for anyone that would lobby it and increase the rights of individuals to act on their own accord or in trade with other, similarly free individuals. Without the power to deeply intrude into the economic lives of people (regardless if employee or shareholder), lobbying government for favors simply wouldn't be a good investment. Indeed, it is ironic that you ask to outlaw this sort of thing... because any time you expand the government power to regulate or influence outcomes you make the lobbying dollars just that much more worthwhile. Going further, you simply are considering a totalitarian systematization of your ideas: something worse than the rent seeking you rightfully decry. (edited for slightly better use of language)

wpietri 10y ago
I think "only solution" is far too strong. It seems to me there are two sorts of lobbying: positive sum informing of legislators, and zero/negative sum jockeying for societal advantage. We want to keep the former and minimize the latter. So my proposal is: 1. Make all paid lobbying illegal. Make corporate donations to candidates, campaigns, and parties illegal. Eliminate revolving doors. Strongly limit individual donations. (And, while we're at it, maybe add federal funding of elections with spending caps.) 2. Industry groups, consumer groups, and the like can exist and publish what they want on their websites, but may not have private contact with legislators, their staffs, etc. 3. Legislators can communicate with outside groups to request information, opinions, and the like, but all requests and responses must be published in a permanently maintained record. 4. We increase the budget for congressional staffing and for neutral research groups like the CBO, so legislators have the resources necessary to make good law without having to lean on paid lobbyists. I'm sure there are plenty of other proposals that could be made as well. The flow of ideas isn't the problem. It's the flow of money and power.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  So questions to your proposal: 1) You make corporate political donations illegal, but that's pretty specific to a single class of interest group. What about those that regularly act in opposition to corporate interests, such as unions, environment groups, consumer groups? Your point 2 seems to imply they would be included, but why are you specific here as to the prohibition? Or do you propose to treat different association of people preferentially and on what basis? 2) Again you're specific to certain kinds of interest groups but this time leave out corporations when granting permissions. Again, do you have favored classes of associations of people? 3) How do you police such a thing? How do police communication through surrogates or the thousand other ways creative individuals seeking rent or hoping for regulatory capture will bypass "communications with the outside"? Isn't this the sort of creative thinking that caused problems with McCain/Feingold and the like? If you accept greater regulatory involvement from the state, the greater the rewards to those that can gain the ear of the regulator. Risk/reward continues to skew to creative evasion. 4) What makes a neutral group neutral, and, in some way, can there ever be such a thing? Don't get me wrong, I don't know of any instances of the CBO outright gaming information, or releases, etc. for clearly political purposes (nor have I studied the question). However, CBO Director is still appointed by the politicians. What if one political interest group captures congress and decides to politicize the CBO since they can't get sufficient outside support for their position under your proposal? Do you politicians like Trump would do such a thing? Even if we put those sort of hand-wavy humans-are-humans arguments aside, elected politicians are ultimately beholden to their constituents regardless of the CBO position; CBO says we spend recklessly on the military (or if then that sort of thing) a big military district politician will very much ignore that advice. I expect your funds for increased staffers results simply in increased "independent" research supporting whatever position a given politician wants to hold for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I still think I'm on the right track and that just about any solution that doesn't somehow require the political class, their staff, and families to be quarantined into some forced monasterial existence cutoff from the outside world, seems corruptible.
  - gech 10y ago
    If we thought up all the bad things that would happen we wouldn't act at all

wpietri 10y ago

I think "only solution" is far too strong. It seems to me there are two sorts of lobbying: positive sum informing of legislators, and zero/negative sum jockeying for societal advantage. We want to keep the former and minimize the latter. So my proposal is: 1. Make all paid lobbying illegal. Make corporate donations to candidates, campaigns, and parties illegal. Eliminate revolving doors. Strongly limit individual donations. (And, while we're at it, maybe add federal funding of elections with spending caps.) 2. Industry groups, consumer groups, and the like can exist and publish what they want on their websites, but may not have private contact with legislators, their staffs, etc. 3. Legislators can communicate with outside groups to request information, opinions, and the like, but all requests and responses must be published in a permanently maintained record. 4. We increase the budget for congressional staffing and for neutral research groups like the CBO, so legislators have the resources necessary to make good law without having to lean on paid lobbyists. I'm sure there are plenty of other proposals that could be made as well. The flow of ideas isn't the problem. It's the flow of money and power.

sbuttgereit 10y ago
So questions to your proposal: 1) You make corporate political donations illegal, but that's pretty specific to a single class of interest group. What about those that regularly act in opposition to corporate interests, such as unions, environment groups, consumer groups? Your point 2 seems to imply they would be included, but why are you specific here as to the prohibition? Or do you propose to treat different association of people preferentially and on what basis? 2) Again you're specific to certain kinds of interest groups but this time leave out corporations when granting permissions. Again, do you have favored classes of associations of people? 3) How do you police such a thing? How do police communication through surrogates or the thousand other ways creative individuals seeking rent or hoping for regulatory capture will bypass "communications with the outside"? Isn't this the sort of creative thinking that caused problems with McCain/Feingold and the like? If you accept greater regulatory involvement from the state, the greater the rewards to those that can gain the ear of the regulator. Risk/reward continues to skew to creative evasion. 4) What makes a neutral group neutral, and, in some way, can there ever be such a thing? Don't get me wrong, I don't know of any instances of the CBO outright gaming information, or releases, etc. for clearly political purposes (nor have I studied the question). However, CBO Director is still appointed by the politicians. What if one political interest group captures congress and decides to politicize the CBO since they can't get sufficient outside support for their position under your proposal? Do you politicians like Trump would do such a thing? Even if we put those sort of hand-wavy humans-are-humans arguments aside, elected politicians are ultimately beholden to their constituents regardless of the CBO position; CBO says we spend recklessly on the military (or if then that sort of thing) a big military district politician will very much ignore that advice. I expect your funds for increased staffers results simply in increased "independent" research supporting whatever position a given politician wants to hold for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I still think I'm on the right track and that just about any solution that doesn't somehow require the political class, their staff, and families to be quarantined into some forced monasterial existence cutoff from the outside world, seems corruptible.
- gech 10y ago
  If we thought up all the bad things that would happen we wouldn't act at all